A nanny state?

Published 7:00 pm, Tuesday, January 1, 2008

The cap would limit cities and towns to property tax increases of no more than 3 percent unless the voters approve a larger increase in a referendum.

At first glance, this might sound like a good, even harmless idea.

But Hartford is in no position to tell municipalities how to manage their finances. This is pure show businesses -- an effort to change the subject from the state's own mismanagement.

This is a state government, after all, that keeps exposing taxpayers to identify theft by failing to protect their personal information. So now state government will pretend to know how to manage something by ordering the cities and towns around?

"A state-imposed cap would be the ultimate 'nanny-state' act," the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities said in an eight-page report on the proposed cap. "It would tell local taxpayers that the state knows better than they how much their town should tax and spend."

"The CCM report is telling property owners that they know better than what the homeowners know," Cooper said. "The mayors want simple cash payouts that they can spend. The governor wants the cash in taxpayers' wallets."

Cooper is in no position to criticize mayors and first selectmen who must cope with the unfunded state mandates that governors and legislators impose on them.

The sharpness of Cooper's comments sets the wrong tone as state government gears up for the 2008 legislative session.

This month, a Property Tax Cap Commission will release its report. The commission is reportedly split on a cap, which is not surprising. Artificial remedies like caps on spending or taxing are no substitute for old-fashioned leadership.

And then there's the bottom line of the governor's cap proposal. She is telling local officials what do with their budgets, rather than concentrating on her own budget and the many management problems in her administration.

Unlike state government, local government is close to the voters. Mayors and first selectmen actually pick up their telephones to talk to the voters. They sit at public hearings to listen to the voters.

In western Connecticut, municipal budgets are approved by the voters in all of the towns. In Danbury, budgets are approved by the Common Council -- elected every two years.

So there is no lack of public comment or control when it comes to local government spending. If only state government would embrace that openness and responsiveness.

If Rell is really interested in the impact of local budgets on the taxpayers, she should address the unfunded state mandates that increase the cost of local government.